Summary:
- Discussed Bert's proposal for bolder/lighter
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Aug/0255.html
David Baron expressed some concerns about how this would impact
mixed script mixed font text
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Aug/0263.html
- RESOLVED: Will publish Media Queries as LC with 4 weeks for comment,
aim for CR early after TPAC
- Discussed Microsoft's new vendor-extension'ed syntax for non-standard
properties:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/09/08/microsoft-css-vendor-extensions.aspx
- Discussed 'page' property and problem of styling the first page of
a section differently from the rest of the section.
====== Full minutes below ======
Attendees:
David Baron
Arron Eicholz
Elika Etemad (scribe)
Sylvain Galineau
Meinda Grant
HÃ¥kon Wium Lie
Peter Linss (chair)
Saloni Mira Rai
Jason Cranford Teague
Jeff Willson
Mohamed Zergaoui
Steve Zilles
Agenda
------
Peter: I got your agenda topic, fantasai
howcome: I want to discuss the 'page' property
fantasai's request was to discuss
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/09/08/microsoft-css-vendor-extensions.aspx
<plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Aug/0255.html
Bert's proposal for bolder/lighter
----------------------------------
fantasai: I've read it. Mostly makes sense to me. If dbaron likes it
then I'm ok with it.
peterl: I remember when implementing this having to look at the
available fonts anyway
dbaron: But not at the computed style level
dbaron: This is pretty different from all the other proposals.
dbaron: I'd be interested to hear what John Daggett has to say.
ACTION dbaron ping jdaggett about
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Aug/0255.html
howcome: I think I'm happy with the outcome if it goes along the lines here
dbaron: I'll also note that there have been multiple proposals, this is only
one of them
Peter: Just wanted to get some feedback here.
* Bert is in Amsterdam and off to a conference dinner in a few minutes.
dbaron: There's a case where it would be problematic... in e.g. Chinese and
Japanese, sometimes the first font is not the main font, it is what
is used for Latin chars
Media Queries
-------------
Peter: Anne was hoping to publish without having to discuss it too much.
Peter: Any feedback? Can we publish?
dbaron: I'm happy with publishing
howcome: me too
fantasai: works for me
Peter: any objections?
RESOLVED: Publish Media Queries as LC
Peter: Any groups we need to ask for review?
fantasai: lots of groups are interested
dbaron: One group that's not part of the usual suspects is whatever the
Device Independence WG has been renamed to this year
Peter: How long?
fantasai: I don't think we want to have an LC period that is especially short
fantasai: Somewhere between 4 and 6 weeks should be good
fantasai: Do we want to aim for CR immediately before TPAC?
Steve: Better to get feedback at TPAC and publish immediately after
<dsinger> (sorry, I can't call in, AT&T cellular has run out of circuits.
I'll keep trying. sorry to be late also)
Peter: So 4 weeks, aim for CR early after TPAC?
Steve: Do we want to jump from LC to PR?
fantasai: Don't have a completed test suite
fantasai: And I don't like leaving drafts in LC for like 6 years
RESOLVED: Media Queries published as LC with 4 weeks for comment, aim for
CR early after TPAC
TPAC
----
Peter: Wanted to remind everyone to register if you haven't already
<plinss> http://www.w3.org/2008/10/TPAC/#Registration
Vendor Extensions
-----------------
fantasai: Microsoft posted that they're going through the properties they
implemented without a prefix and adding -ms-
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/09/08/microsoft-css-vendor-extensions.aspx
fantasai: For several properties here there have been implementations by
other browser vendors, so they are ineffect de-facto standards
fantasai: It wouldn't be good to require the prefix for those.
Sylvain: The prefix isn't required, it's optional.
Sylvain: If you want to be really strict, then you can use the prefixed
version.
Sylvain: Other issue is do implementations of those properties really match
Sylvain: Finally, if we're talking about CSS3 properties like writing-mode,
the issue is that until things are at CR their behavior is not
stable.
Peter: When I read through the article it wasn't clear whether IE8 Standards
mode would reject non-prefixed versions.
Sylvain: No, the non-prefixed version is still supported. Otherwise that
would break the world
dbaron: I'm not sure encouraging them to use the prefixed version is good
for overflow-x and overflow-y. Those are widely implemented
Arron: Wasn't there a discussion about how overflow-x and overflow-y
conflict with each other?
dbaron: I thought the spec was pretty clear about that
fantasai: I think if the prefix is optional then that's fine
Peter: I think it's great to see MSFT is doing this
Steve: I would second that
<SaloniR> :)
'page' Property
---------------
<howcome> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-gcpm/Overview.html
Peter: we only have 5 minutes
howcome: 'page' was in CSS2, removed and put back in CSS3 Paged Media
howcome: Consideration here is to change it from inherited to non-inherited
howcome: One of the use cases in CSS2 would change its behavior
howcome: When you have two sibling elements with the same "page: foo",
then in the old behavior those would appear on the same page if
there's room
<dsinger> (it seems at&t wireless has a technical problem, the very day
the cellular show CTIA opens here in SF. sorry.)
howcome: There wouldn't be an implicit page break between them
howcome: In the new proposal any element that has set a named page will
lead to a page break before it
howcome: so those would appear on two separate pages
fantasai: Printer implementations would break. I think that's a problem
for HP, Epson, etc.
howcome: This would make possible a lot of things that were not possible
in the past
howcome: for example styling the first page of a section separately
howcome: this is mainly a discussion between myself, Antenna House, and HP
howcome: we should do this now rather than in a year's time because we
want implementations to progress
fantasai: I'm concerned about backwards compatibility.
fantasai: Maybe if we keep the behavior of the siblings staying on the
same page
fantasai: and have :first apply if the new section also is assinged a
forced page break
howcome: we should probably discuss this on the mailing list, but I
wanted to make sure everyone who wanted to participate in the
discussions is aware
Peter: I know Melinda was very concerned about this. Ideally we want to
move forward without breaking backwards-compatibility
howcome: It's hard to solve all these use cases and constraints, but if
somebody can do it that would be great